The two basic issues are
For N reg the permit is usually not restricted.
Most European airspaces ban IFR in uncertified. However there is zero enforcement which leads to a lot of denial and wishful thinking. This will continue.
Peter wrote:
Not many people are willing to argue this topic yet again, because digging up the reg is usually very hard and in some cases almost impossible; they are deep in national laws.
That is true, but there is the ICAO and ICAO has defined the AIP. The definition is:
intended primarily to satisfy international requirements for the exchange of aeronautical information of a lasting character essential to air navigation
Further the scope is pretty clear regarding this (annex 15):
Obviously it’s all (or most) in relation to international flights. Also, although the ICAO has a bunch of stuff on the aircraft themselves and what constitutes an airworthy aircraft “according to ICAO”, regarding international flights/operation of GA aircraft, ICAO does not differentiate between various “classes” of aircraft (certified, experimental or UL for instance). The definitions of aeroplane and aircraft are the same as used elsewhere.
ICAO does have a note about “reasonable means” concerning the PIC and the assessment of information for a flight.
We can safely conclude that having to dig deep into national laws in foreign languages regarding international operations of GA aircraft, is well beyond what ICAO defines as reasonable means in this context.
Either a country is a member of ICAO or it isn’t. If it is, then all aspects about international operations of (any) aircraft must be written in the AIP. This is also what most countries do. Information is found In the AIP or readily obtainable from other sources. This must also include various national regulations or restrictions on non-ICAO certified aircraft, which is also what most countries do. If nothing is written anywhere that a PIC can obtain with reasonable means, then this can only mean there are no applicable rules/restrictions.
You use terms as “look through the fingers”, “flying below the radar” and so on. This is very misleading and in most cases blatantly false. This doesn’t mean that some people don’t want to attract attention, but this can be due to lots of other (legitimate) reasons. Not all people have YouTube genes 
There are lots of places where this Evolution can be operated exactly as any other similar certified aircraft. The entire Nordic for instance, an area larger than UK, Germany and France combined. The Evolution is what it is however. As an homebuilt it super complex, super expensive, and the utility value is limited to high and fast. All in all it is hard to find a reason to operate an Evolution instead of a much more sensible similarly priced certified aircraft. It has none of the usual benefits of a homebuilt vs certified, mostly because certified aircraft in that price range are very good at what they do in comparison (in contrast to most SEPs).
The ECAC recommendation is definitely a thing. It has served people well for the last 40 years.
This is wishful thinking, all done before many times.
There are lots of places where this Evolution can be operated exactly as any other similar certified aircraft
“Operated” means what? Flown, yes, and one can play with words. Check previous movements over past few years. Nobody doing it there. According to locals, Norway has only about 4 N-regs (of all types) based there, and anyway they are banned from being based in Norway Sweden and Denmark so why is this being dug out again; it is disingenuous. About the only country in W Europe where the Evo (or any N-reg homebuilt) could be based long term would be Germany, which enables a re-application every 180 days (previous threads) but bans IFR in homebuilts. You would have to register an Evolution locally but nobody has managed to do that anywhere in Europe; probably for a reason. The movements with type EVOT, Mode S (necessary for IFR in this type) have been within Lithuania (low level sightseeing flights), and then CZ to Croatia (Eurocontrol IFR, the famous N111XA), crossing a few countries which do not allow it (all posted before). Then one sitting in a hangar in Bulgaria – see the thread on that (never flew in those days; maybe somebody bought it). That kit was sold by Lancair to a customer in Russia, IIRC, and this (Eastern Europe, where regs are “somewhat variable” or nonexistent, especially if you are well connected) is a pattern with this aircraft and for a good reason. All discussed previously, including the legality in airspaces crossed.
The idea behind an AIP and NOTAMs is that these deliver a legal briefing, but Europe has driven a plough through that. See e.g. this. Times have changed. And they continue to change; I am sitting at Annecy on our meet-up and the airport does not accept flights even from another schengen country unless you send in a police form, with a 24hr PN. See the thread on unusual airport briefings required.
ECAC is worthless except where locally implemented.
ICAO is worthless except where locally implemented.
If the Evolution was certified, then everything would change. But this is hard work and few have done it with this type of aircraft. The Epic is about the last one, and the spec had changed a lot on the way there. Lancair has very obviously been hovering right on the edge of financial viability for many years and they don’t have the resources to do it – whatever form the company takes.
Peter wrote:
Norway has about 4 N-regs based there
What has N-reg got to do with it? Nothing at all is the answer. I can start building an Evolution today if I wanted to (and had the money ), or import one from the US and put it on LN. There are no strings attached, there are no restrictions, there are no “VFR-only” written in any aircraft document. Could you please stop spreading unrelated and wrong information? It’s getting annoying. There’s no Evolution in Norway flying IFR at 20k, but there is one Mach 2 capable F-104 Starfighter (experimental) flying IFR at what 40-50k ? The only one in Europe.
The elephant in the room here is obviously that the Evolution is a silly plane to start with. As silly as it gets. There is nothing it can do that a certified plane cannot do better, and usually at a lower cost, and with much less trouble. It’s a toy.
Peter wrote:
The idea behind an AIP and NOTAMs is that these deliver a legal briefing, but Europe has driven a plough through that. See e.g. this. Times have changed. And they continue to change; I am sitting at Annecy on our meet-up and the airport does not accept flights even from another schengen country unless you send in a police form, with a 24hr PN. See the thread on unusual airport briefings required.
AIP and NOTAMs are both defined by ICAO. Nothing more to discuss. That France tries to isolate themselves from the rest of Europe (legally-hardly or illegally-probably), is disappointing, but it’s nothing new. And France is not alone in doing so. The UK has done the same, only to a much larger extent. This doesn’t change the legal importance of ICAO in relation to pilots and operations. But this is also an important point here. We live where we live, and fly accordingly. The whole of Nordics, Baltics, Poland, Germany ++ are great places to fly. France and UK are both seemingly too much grief to bother with at the moment. That those two places have a sketchy relationship with international agreements, doesn’t mean the rest of Europe has.
This thread must win the prize for moving goalposts and ignoratio elenchi.
LeSving wrote:
The elephant in the room here is obviously that the Evolution is a silly plane to start with. As silly as it gets. There is nothing it can do that a certified plane cannot do better, and usually at a lower cost, and with much less trouble. It’s a toy.
@LeSving, I’m sorry, could you name a few new certified Single Engine Turboprop models cheaper than the current Evolution price ($1.2M)?
And in the US it is NOT a toy, but a good method of transportation.
LeSving wrote:
AIP and NOTAMs are both defined by ICAO. Nothing more to discuss. That France tries to isolate themselves from the rest of Europe (legally-hardly or illegally-probably), is disappointing, but it’s nothing new. And France is not alone in doing so. The UK has done the same, only to a much larger extent. This doesn’t change the legal importance of ICAO in relation to pilots and operations. But this is also an important point here. We live where we live, and fly accordingly. The whole of Nordics, Baltics, Poland, Germany ++ are great places to fly. France and UK are both seemingly too much grief to bother with at the moment. That those two places have a sketchy relationship with international agreements, doesn’t mean the rest of Europe has.
Germany as well is bad then? I still remember that story about a pilot who was forced to pay a VAT on crossing the German-Swiss border, after reading an incorrectly written AIP.
AIP should contain all required information, accurate and up to date, but not every country (to put it mildly) does that.
Most permits for homebuilts in Europe are issued with a VFR-only restriction.
Maybe Norwegian ones are not. Swedish ones are not according to the first few posts in this thread which also cover the Evolution.
Yet, nobody has done it, presumably because they realised that one could not fly IFR past the borders of Sweden or, presumably Norway, and that most airspaces prohibit IFR in homebuilts. I know someone tried to get permission from Germany for his UK LAA IFR approved RV, and failed.
The advantages of an N-reg homebuilt are
and the big disadvantage is that you cannot legally long-term-base it anywhere in Europe except in Germany (or former soviet bloc countries where you can “swing things”, possibly for money) as described above and e.g. here. And that is really hard because you would have to keep it away from prying eyes and definitely plane spotters. It would have to live in a hangar.
As I said, it’s all been chewed over before, years ago.
